Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Leyla's terminology is actually quite common in the fields of sociology, anthropology, comparative religion and such.

AFAICT, she has taken that sense of 'religion' and broadened it even furhter. However, the real point here is that she is equivocating between different senses of 'religion'.

Communism was a civic religion in this sense, for example. It had an established set of beliefs and practices, though ostensibly no metaphysical content. However, to broaden the meaning of the term to apply to all species of nationalism beggars credulity -- and of course the subsequent equivocation adds injury tot he insult.

It's not necessarily related to anything racist or antisemitic. Such accusations are just based in ignorance or perhaps the presence of an overarching agenda or paranoia.

I will thank you to point out any place where I claimed that the concept of civic religion is anti-semitic.

My argument is that the way Leyla abuses it -- in an unsound argument aimed to discredit zionism -- is anti-semitic, not the concept itself.

It's not moot to suggest that all nationalism is religious in nature. This just attempts to highlight the commonalities, how people can die for god as well as country, or both. It's about sacrifice, what one is willing to sacrifice to belong to something, be part of something. Or how to be motivated to do so. This is perhaps not the same type of religion as a collection of intense personal, transcendent experiences which are then categorized as being 'such and such'. But really, if religion needs a definition that captures its essence, one needs to look at its specific function, how it works in groups, how it's named and turned into banners.

And one has to look at the fact that religions accomplish those ends by providing people with a fairly fixed set of beliefs about the world. If you are looking at similarities, then also note the differences -- metaphysical religion and civic religion may be related, in that both provide social coherence, but they also differ in critical respects, because civil religion doesn't entail a hierarchy of authoritative belief-givers and belief-interpreters, and thus results in a very different forms and applications of its resultant social cohesion.

This process of describing is really useful, like when seeing the religious in what is claimed to be non-religious.

OK, let me try this.

Fish have flippers. Dolphins have flippers. Ergo, they belong to the same biological taxon!

How am I doing?

Which prepares the way for seeing how behind advanced wording very primitive and barely developed, innate images can hide. Or how any 'advanced' civilization might not be so mature philosophically as it thinks it is - as it's still bowing down for old clay gods wearing new [straight] jackets.

See? You couldn't help yourself. Same equivocation as Leyla practices. First you speak of religion in the broadest possible sense, as simply a sort of social glue -- and then, once you think you established your point, boom! accusations of faith strike. Believing in a sky daddy and believing in your nation -- same shit, different social order!

You people have internalized this sort of argument by definitional equivocation. You can't fucking help yourself, you can't avoid deploying it, you don't even recognize when you do so. You think just because you managed to connect two different things to the same word, differently defined, that you have suddenly proven an important relationship between those things.

This remind me of a rather pleasing incident I had recently. I gave my kids that old logical puzzle: "Everybody loves my baby, but my baby loves nobody but me. Who is my baby?" -- and they figured it out! pretty fast, too, in just a few seconds.

vicdan wrote:My argument is that the way Leyla abuses it -- in an unsound argument aimed to discredit zionism -- is anti-semitic, not the concept itself.

So, let me get this straight: the employment of an unsound argument (or one asserted to be so) is now a basis for the accusation of anti-Semitism? Why pussy-foot around? Why not just declare that to be a non-Jew is anti-Semitic!?

Damn, I Zionist and your own landlord. That sounds like paranoiac hell to me!

This remind me of a rather pleasing incident I had recently. I gave my kids that old logical puzzle: "Everybody loves my baby, but my baby loves nobody but me. Who is my baby?" -- and they figured it out! pretty fast, too, in just a few seconds.

Dan Rowden wrote:So, let me get this straight: the employment of an unsound argument (or one asserted to be so) is now a basis for the accusation of anti-Semitism?

No, not unsound argumentation itself. Unsound argumentation aimed specifically to support anti-semitic theses. If the argument were sound, then its conclusion would simply be true; but she essentially prevaricates to support an anti-semitic claim.

See, if a person reaches the anti-something conclusion soundly, then she is probably just following truth where it leads, however unpleasant such truth might be. However, if she reaches such a conclusion unsoundly, then we know that she arrived there for reasons other than following the breadcrumb trail of reasona nd evidence. Given the nature of the conclusion in question, the most obvious explanation is pre-existing prejudice: Leyla hates the jews, and contrives meretricious arguments to give her hatred a superficial semblance of veridical grounding.

Why pussy-foot around? Why not just declare that to be a non-Jew is anti-Semitic!?

vicdan wrote:If she reaches such a conclusion unsoundly, then we know that she arrived there for reasons other than following the breadcrumb trail of truth. Given the nature of the conclusion in question, the most obvious explanation is pre-existing prejudice: Leyla hates the jews, and contrives meretricious arguments to give her hatred a superficial semblance of veridical grounding.

This was my motivation to become involved with this thread to begin with. Leyla has opinions and not much knowledge of history. I'm still waiting for her to get beyond the 1920's. All she could come up with is that religion is the catalyst for war or something like that. I was trying to establish the fact that modern Jewish settlement in Palestine had begun prior to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire by some thirty to forty years and had a variety of causes. I'm just trying to keep it veridical.

Man, you are a piece of intricate ornamental work, chiming copious self-loving detail over Genius land from atop your generous phallic tower, eh?

Eh...

L: Religious dogmatism is a symptom of ignorance—and, as Marx so astutely observed, an opiate of the masses—not a cause.

vd: Marx was speaking of religion's palliative and analgesic, not intoxicating, properties.

Oh, really? Whilst I wouldn’t, myself, at all discredit examining religion as palliative and analgesic, what Marx was actually talking about was the fantasy-driven (illusory) nature of religion, which veils the economic reality of the poor. I’d call that pretty intoxicating:

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.

I dunno about everyone else, but I feel mightily threatened and inadequate when confronted with your awe-inspiring use of language - your words obviously reflect an intellect of such power and magnitude that the sun itself appears like a shrivelled dead pea in comparison.

Come on, girl, you haven't quite piled the Pelion upon Ossa, bad-metaphor-wise! Keep up the good effort! You can reach even greater heights of absurdity!

Nice of you to work my mighty phallus in, though. Is that a woman thing, accusing men of phallic obsessions when pushed into a corner, or just a Leyla thing? What are you going to do next, demand gentlemanly behavior?

An ignominious retreat into the comfort of whining victimhood. How fucking pathetic.

Oh, really? Whilst I wouldn’t, myself, at all discredit examining religion as palliative and analgesic, what Marx was actually talking about was the fantasy-driven (illusory) nature of religion, which veils the economic reality of the poor.

if you are gonna grab a single word, at least retain its minimal context. Marx used the words 'illusory happiness'. More palliative than intoxicating. Marx describes the role of religion as not distoring man's perception of reality, but rather alleviating the pain of that perception, and thus removing the impetus to improve the real condition. The illusion in question is not the veridical illusion, but an algesic one; not misperceiving the world, but concealing the real pain of misperceiving the world. The analgesic attributes of opiates are exactly the analogy here. The salient trait of opiates here is not that they make you hallucinate, it's that they let you not give a fuck that you are in pain. Illusory happiness, not illusory perception.

P.S. Anyone who takes Marx seriously deserves to be laughed out of town. He sucked as a philosopher, as an economist, and as a political theorist. In fact, I am hard-pressed to think of a single major discipline he stuck his beard into, which he didn't end up sucking at.

I dunno about everyone else, but I feel mightily threatened and inadequate when confronted with your awe-inspiring use of language - your words obviously reflect an intellect of such power and magnitude that the sun itself appears like a shrivelled dead pea in comparison.

if you are gonna grab a single word, at least retain its minimal context. Marx used the words 'illusory happiness'. More palliative than intoxicating. Marx describes the role of religion as not distoring man's perception of reality, but rather alleviating the pain of that perception, and thus removing the impetus to improve the real condition. The illusion in question is not the veridical illusion, but an algesic one; not misperceiving the world, but concealing the real pain of misperceiving the world. The analgesic attributes of opiates are exactly the analogy here. The salient trait of opiates here is not that they make you hallucinate, it's that they let you not give a fuck that you are in pain. Illusory happiness, not illusory perception.

Disingenuous hairsplitting.

You made a point, in relation to a quote of mine, that Marx was not actually talking about the intoxicating effect of religion. Clearly, you were the only one who understood this to mean hallucination. Thus, the salient point actually being made is that, by definition (rather than your personal fucked up fantasy) to be intoxicated is to be stupefied, stimulated or excited; in this case, by religion as a veil of suffering.

Here, let me highlight it for you, dumkopf (careful, it might be a bit too close to home):

The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

P.S. Anyone who takes Marx seriously deserves to be laughed out of town. He sucked as a philosopher, as an economist, and as a political theorist. In fact, I am hard-pressed to think of a single major discipline he stuck his beard into, which he didn't end up sucking at.

Ooooh, I touched a nerve, didn't I? Do you have an intellectual crush on Marx? Did you hook up with the geniuses because their beards reminded you of Karl's? :)

Yeah, girlie, it's because I say so. i say things like: "Labor theory of value is monumentally wrong" and "Planned economy cannot possibly work because the global economic optimization problem is computationally intractable, and furthermore creates a vast fertile ground for corruption". Additionally, Marx's view of the relationship between capital and labor has proven to be totally, utterly incorrect -- where he saw exploitation spiraling out of control, reality has proven that free market delivers a better life even to proletarians themselves than the planned economies possibly could.

Just FYI, BTW, I grew up in a country which was built on marxist principles. I saw first-hand what planned economy does, I know where the dictatorship of the proletariat leads.

Go ahead, give me that good ole schpiel about how real marxism has never been tried. I need a good laugh.

vicdan wrote:Anyone who takes Marx seriously deserves to be laughed out of town. He sucked as a philosopher, as an economist, and as a political theorist.

Leyla has not demonstrated that she even understands Marx.

It is interesting that the person who created a thread with the title Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today ends up bringing the discussion around to Marx and religion, two things which have little to do with the topic, but obviously represent something upon which she feels somehow authoritative.

As vicdan has pointed out, the term "opiate" refers to the palliative effects of religion and is clearly a criticism as such. But let's not forget the traditional use of opiates, which is to deaden pain so that an operation might be performed or a bullet removed or a bone set. If this is all that religion offered, it would not be without its valid uses.

You, Leyla, are as blind to the nature of the religious experience as you are to the facts of history or the real nature of the human enterprise, of which economics is but one facet.

It is fascinating to me that the geniuses here maintain that everything is causally related. Everything, that is, except the Holocaust and the existence of the state of Israel less than five years later. Dan has said here that the Jews have appropriated the term Holocaust, and that not only did one not happen as Jews claim, but is not reason enough for the existence of Israel. My contention is that 6 million Jews represented about 75% of the European Jewish population, and that the very existence of Israel is proof that a Holocaust happened.

History is already being forgotten and rewritten. If the question is raised, why Palestine for a Jewish homeland, it seems to be ignored that many other locations were proposed by Zionists and that the gradual buildup of the Jewish population in Palestine during the interwar period was simply the continuation and expansion of Jewish emigration which began as a result of the Russian pogroms in the early 1880s. The majority of that emigration was to the US, and many Zionists envisioned a homeland here and not in the Middle East. It should not be forgotten that many native Palestinians at the time considered themselves more Syrian than anything else, and much of the land acquisition by formerly European Jews in Palestine was welcomed by them, as it gave them capital to they could otherwise not have obtained, and which many used to move north to Syria proper.

Leyla cannot get past her sad little love affair with Marxist bullshit to comprehend that Zionism is nationalism of an ethnic group that had no nation. Religion is only a facet of the tradition which has bound the Jews together in the Diaspora.

It should be obvious that it is anything but an opiated people that has established a state in a hostile region and defended against a vastly more numerous enemy surrounding it. One neither has to romanticize the Jews nor despise them to see the facts.

I dunno about everyone else, but I feel mightily threatened and inadequate when confronted with your awe-inspiring use of language - your words obviously reflect an intellect of such power and magnitude that the sun itself appears like a shrivelled dead pea in comparison.

Christ, Jason, I barfed up my breakfast.

Last edited by brokenhead on Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

brokenhead wrote:Dan has said here that the Jews have appropriated the term Holocaust, and that not only did one not happen as Jews claim, but is not reason enough for the existence of Israel.

He said that, did he? Interesting.

It should be obvious that it is anything but an opiated people that has established a state in a hostile region and defended against a vastly more numerous enemy surrounding it. One neither has to romanticize the Jews nor despise them to see the facts.

I dunno, romanticizing works quite well for me, seeing what Israel has accomplished over its brief existence so far, both in peace and in war.

The irony of it, BTW, is that Israeli accomplishments have been disproportionately driven by quasi-socialist kibbutzniks. Where Leyla would see marxism and/or socialism as the downfall of nationalism, in Israel a non-marxist socialism, labor zionism as it's been historically called, ended up buttressing what is perhaps one of the most robust nationalist movements in the world.

brokenhead wrote:Dan has said here that the Jews have appropriated the term Holocaust, and that not only did one not happen as Jews claim, but is not reason enough for the existence of Israel.

He said that, did he? Interesting.

Firstly, Jews have appropriated the term "holocaust". No sane person would deny this. Second, I said quite explicitly that a holocaust took place, and that many holocausts took place in WW11 and that WW11 was a holocaust in and of itself. I don't accept certain aspects of the claims relating to "The Holocaust" story. That a great many Jews - and others - were rounded up, dumped in camps and died in large numbers is not in question. Lastly, in my view "The Holocaust" is indeed not reason enough for the existence of Israel. The reasons generally given for its existence are made up bullshit. However, if someone said to me: "Israel was a good idea just for the pragmatic political and cultural convenience of a self-identifying cultural group," I would actually agree. It's the fashion. I don't have any issue with Israel's existence, per se. I have an issue with the yet unaddressed consequences of its creation.

It's always a better idea to quote the statements of others rather than paraphrase what you think they're said or what their position is.

brokenhead wrote:
If the question is raised, why Palestine for a Jewish homeland, it seems to be ignored that many other locations were proposed by Zionists and that the gradual buildup of the Jewish population in Palestine during the interwar period was simply the continuation and expansion of Jewish emigration which began as a result of the Russian pogroms in the early 1880s.

Well if the Zionists are so blase as to where the 'homeland' should be,as you contend, then perhaps this might be a good time to hand over the wailing wall and temple mount to Hamas as a sign of good-will.